offence of robbery - important cases

OFFENCE OF ROBBERY

CRIMINAL LAW - I RESEARCH PROJECT

Submitted To: Prof (Dr.) G S BAJPAI

Submitted By: Suniti Sampat (Roll No. 71)

Tarun Agarwal (Roll no. 72)

Thejaswi Melarkode (Roll No. 73)

First Year - Second Semester

National Law University, Delhi

2014

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Topics Pg. No.

Table of Cases…………………………………………………………………......3

Table of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………….4

Introduction……………………………………………………………………......5

Landmark Cases……………………………………………………………….....6-18

Cases B/W 2001 to 2007………………………………………………………...19-34

Cases B/W 2008 to 20013……………………………………………………….35-53

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..54

3

TABLE OF CASES

Landmark Cases

Abdul Rashid and Ors. Vs. Nausher Ali…………………………………………6

Karmum v. Emperor decided…………………………………………………….8

Bishambhar Nath and another v. Emperor…………………………...................12

Sheo Murar and Ors. v. State…………………………………………………………16

Cases (2001-2007)

Ashfaq v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)………………………………………...19

Aslam v. State of Rajasthan…………………………………………………….23

Niranjan Singh v. State of M.P………………………………………………....27

State of Karnataka v. David Rozario……………………………………………..30

Cases (2008-20013)

Anil S/O. Lilachand Sarjare v. State Of Maharashtra…………………………….35

Venu @ Venugopal and Ors. v. State of Karnataka……………………………....39

Amarjit Singh v. State NCT Of Delhi…………………………………………….44

Rajesh @ Rajbir v. State………………………………………………………….49

4

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

Cri LJ Criminal Law Journal

Ed. Edition.

Govt. Government

Ors. Others

Pg. No. Page No.

SC Supreme Court

Sec. Section

Ibid. ibidem

v. versus

Vol. Volume

Vis-à-vis face to face

5

INTRODUCTION

The topic which will be researched in this project is the criminal offence of robbery. Section

390 of IPC, 1860 deals with the offence of Robbery. It defines robbery as either theft or

extortion. Theft is" robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the

theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the

offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or

wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

While, Extortion is" robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the

presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of

instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other

person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person, so put in fear then and there to deliver

up the thing extorted.

Sec. 392 deals with the punishment for robbery. Section 394 of the IPC prescribes the

punishment for voluntarily causing hurt while committing or attempting to commit robbery.

Section 397 of the IPC prescribes the punishment for causing grievous hurt or attempting to

cause death or grievous hurt to any person at the time of committing robbery while Section 398

of the IPC prescribes the punishment if the offender is armed with any deadly weapon while

attempting to commit robbery. Robbery is an aggravated form of either theft or extortion.

The opening words of Section 390, IPC, show that there cannot be any robbery, if there

is no theft or extortion. Both in theft and extortion, dishonesty is an essential ingredient.

So, if there is no element of dishonesty in an act, there can be no offence of theft or

extortion and consequently there cannot be an offence of robbery. Similarly, removal of

movable property from the possession of another is a necessary element to constitute an

offence of theft. If-this element is absent, then there is no theft and consequently, there will

be no robbery either. Thus, in order to verify whether a particular act would amount to

a robbery or not, one has to first establish that the offence has essential ingredients of theft

or extortion, since robbery is nothing but an aggravated form of theft and extortion.'

Theft or extortion or attempt to commit any one of the two is an inevitable ingredient

for robbery. Theft becomes robbery, if, in order to facilitate the committing of theft or

in attempting to carry away the stolen property, the offender (i.e. the thief) voluntarily

causes or attempts to cause death, hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death,

instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.

Daya

Highlight

Daya

Highlight

Daya

Highlight

Daya

Highlight

Daya

Highlight

Daya

Highlight

Daya

Highlight

Daya

Highlight

Daya

Highlight

Daya

Highlight

Daya

Highlight

Daya

Highlight

6

LANDMARK CASES

Abdul Rashid and Ors. Vs. Nausher Ali on 10 April, 1979

1979 Cri LJ 1158

Calcutta High Court

Abdul Rashid and Ors….Appellant

Nausher Ali……………….Respondent

Bench : Justice Monoj Kumar Mukherjee

The brief facts of the case are as follows. On the 5th of June, 1979, the petitioners had formed

an unlawful assembly along with some other unknown persons. After this, they trespassed into

the land of the complainant, being armed with various weapons. They then started removing

the til crops which had been cultivated by the complainant. On getting this information, the

complainant went to the land and protested. The accused persons threatened the complainant

saying that in case he made an attempt to enter into the land in the future, he will be killed. The

other allegation the complainant made is that the accused persons were frequently giving out

that they would set fire to the house of the complainant and do other mischief. In his initial

deposition the complainant gave the statement that when he protested, the accused persons

abused him in filthy language and chased him with lathis. Some of the witnesses from the

complainant’s side deposed to the effect that when the complainant protested, the accused

abused him and threatened to kill him. In the context of the allegations made by the complainant

and the statements of the witnesses examined on his behalf, the matter for determination is

whether the materials on record make out a prima facie case under Sections 395/397 of the

I.P.C.

Contentions:

Prosecution: The prosecution contends that the accused threatened to kill the complainant and

set fire to the house of the complainant. Further, the accused used filthy language and chased

the complainant with lathis. Hence, a prima facie case under Sections 395/397 is made

Defence: The contention of the defence was that the materials that are on record do not make

out a prima facie case under Sections 395/ 397 of the I.P.C. The defence also contended that

the learned Magistrate was not justified in issuing process against the accused under the

aforementioned section.

7

Issues Framed:

1) Whether, in light of the allegations made by the complainant and the statement of

the witnesses on his behalf, the materials on record make out a prima facie case under

Sections 395/397 of the I.P.C?

LAWS & PROVISIONS APPLIED

The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code



Cases Relied

Cases relied on by:

Prosecution :

_

Defence:

_

The Court:

_

Judgement: The proceeding of the case from the stage the learned Magistrate took cognizance

was quashed and the learned Magistrate was directed to proceed with the complaint in

accordance with the provisions of law.

1. For transformation of an offence of theft to one under robbery, the case must

satisfy the requirements of Section 390 of the I.P.C. "Theft" may be treated

as "robbery" under the said section if, during the commission of theft, or in

committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property

obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts

to cause to any person death or hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant

death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. The essence of

robbery hence is that the offender for the end of committing theft, or carrying

8

away or attempting to carry away the looted property, voluntarily causes or

attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of

instant death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint. The use of

violence will not ipso facto convert the offence of theft into robbery unless

the violence is committed for one of the ends specified in that section.

2. Judging the facts of the instant case in the light of Section 390 of I.P.C, the

court did not find any allegation whatsoever to show prima facie that the

threat was meted out by the petitioners for any of the ends mentioned in the

Section 390 of the I.P.C. In absence of any specific averment or allegation to

that effect, the court was of the view that the learned Magistrate was not

justified in holding that a prima facie case under Sections 395/397 of the

I.P.C. was made out on the materials on record.

3. In view of the foregoing discussion, the application succeeded and the Rule

was made absolute. The proceeding of C. R. Case No. 340 of 1978 from the

stage the learned Magistrate took cognizance was quashed and the learned

Magistrate wasdirected to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the

provisions of the law.

Sentencing:

The application succeeded

Obiter

When "robbery" is committed by five or more persons, it meets the requirements of

the definition of "dacoity" under Section 391 of the I.P.C.

2. Karmum v. Emperor decided on 4th March,1933

AIR 1933 Lahore 407

Lahore High Court

Karmum and others…..Appellants

9

Emperor……..Defendant

Bench: Judge Agha Haidar

The following are the brief facts of the case. On the night between 13th/14th August 1932,

Mt. Karam Bhari, Prosecution Witness 3, wife of Hussain. Bakhsh Patwari, P.W. 10,

accompanied by her two sons, namely, Haidar Ali, aged 16, and Rahmat Ullah, aged 10,

alighted at the Kanjwani, Railway Station, at about twelve o'clock at night and took shelter

in the passengers' shed. After half an hour the two accused, namely, Karmun and Mokha,

also came to the Railway Station. One of them took his seat on a bench, which was lying

there, while the other lay down on the floor and went to sleep. The man, who was sitting on

the bench, after some time went out and, after having washed himself, said his prayer and,

returning to the passengers' shed, again took his seat on the bench. He awoke the man who

was sleeping on the floor and then both of them went out and returned after about half an

hour. Again, one of them sat down on the bench while the other went to sleep on the floor.

Shortly, afterwards both of them went out. While these preliminary manoeuvres were taking

place, Mt. Karam. Bhari was sitting quite alert . She was wide awake and was holding in her

hands a bundle containing her valuables in front of her. All of a sudden one of the culprits

came from behind and caught hold of the bundle which Mt. Karam Bhari was holding

.Thereafter, they tried to run away with it. Mt. Karam Bhari however kept her grip on the

bundle and, was in fact dragged 2 or 3 karams along with it as the culprit, who had first

pounced upon it, tried to make good his escape. In the end she lost her hold on the bundle

and the two culprits, made away with the booty. According to the prosecution, some days

afterwards the two culprits, namely, Karmun and Mokha, were traced and the police

managed to recover some stolen property from their possession. In fact it is stated that they

themselves produced the stolen property. Hayatu accused, according to the prosecution, is

also alleged to have produced part of the stolen property.

Contentions:

Prosecution: 1) the conditions for theft have been fulfilled

2) It can qualify as an aggravated form of theft i.e. robbery

10

Defence: 1) The statement of the complainant cannot be completely relied upon and there is

no case of theft

2) Does not qualify as robbery, which is an aggravated form of theft

Issues framed:

1. Have all conditions of theft have been fulfilled?

2. Does this case qualify as an aggravated form of theft, which is robbery?

3. Was the hurt caused voluntarily “for that end”? “For that end” means to

facilitate theft.

Laws and Provisions Applied

Indian Penal Code, 1860



Cases referred to:

Prosecution:

-

Defence:

-

The court:

1) Thomas Gnosil (1824) 1 C. P.304

2) Edwards (1783) 1Cox 32

Judgement: The words "for that end" and "voluntarily" are of relevance. Before a person

can be convicted of robbery the prosecution has to prove that hurt was caused for the end,

namely, in order to facilitate the committing of the theft or in committing the theft or in

11

carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by the theft. In the present

case, the object of the accused was to steal the bundle and run away with it It cannot be said

that because Mt. Karam Bhari was dragged to a distance of 2 or 3 karams along with the

bundle, they voluntarily caused hurt to her for that end. In fact, far from voluntarily dragging

and thereby causing hurt to Mt. Karam Bhari who was stuck to her bundle, they would have

been mightily pleased had she had not held fast to the bundle at all and allowed them to carry

it away without any let or hindrance. The hurt contemplated must be a conscious and

voluntary act on the part of the thief for the purpose of overpowering resistance on the part

of the victim, quite separate and distinct from the act of theft itself. In an English case

reported as Thomas Gnosil (1824) 1 C. P.304, the accused, while walking behind a woman

in a street, forcibly pulled the shawl, which she was wearing on her shoulders, and in doing

so, used considerable violence which must have at least caused her bodily shock. It was held

that, inasmuch as violence was not used for the purpose of overpowering the lady, but only

to get possession of her shawl, the accused was not guilty of highway robbery. Again, in

another case reported as Edwards (1783) 1Cox 32, a person, while cutting a string by which

a basket was suspended, with the intention of stealing it, accidentally cut the wrist of the

owner who tried to seize and retain the basket and prevent the thief from running away with

it. It was held that the offence committed was theft and not robbery. In the present case the

hurt caused to Mt. Karam Bhari took the shape of her being dragged away a short distance

and was merely an accidental circumstance which followed in the natural course of events

from the act of asportation as described above. In the opinion of the court, the two accused,

namely, Karam and Mokha, are not guilty of robbery. They are however clearly guilty of the

offence of theft which, in the present case, is of a serious nature, as the victim was an

unprotected woman who happened to be all alone at a wayside railway station.

Sentencing: The appeal was allowed to some extent. The conviction and sentencing under

Section 392 was set aside. He was convicted under Section 379 and sentenced to three year’s

rigorous imprisonment. The conviction of Hayatu was set aside.

12

Bishambhar Nath and another v. Emperor on 23rd April, 1941

Bishambhar Nath….Appellant

Emperor………………Respondent

Bench: Justice Ghulam Hasan

The following are the brief facts of the case. on 11th November 1940, the applicants went

to a carnival show held at Hardoi, where the applicants tried their luck at what is known as

dart shooting stall. This stall had a table placed in the middle which had different colours

painted on it. There was a board with similar colours just behind the table. Those who wanted

to bet were given three darts to shoot at the board at the colour selected by them. The

customers paid one anna at least for each set of darts. Filas, the applicant, along with his

companions, started the betting at about 8 P.M. and this went on for about three hours.

At about 11 P.M. Filas bet Rs. 2 on a white colour and threw all his three darts. These did

not hit a white colour at the board, but they hit a black colour. Filas demanded his money

back claiming that he had bet on a black colour and had consequently won the game. The

manager in charge of the stall refused to accept this claim and asserted that he had really

placed his bet on a white colour. This led to an altercation between Filas on one side and the

manager on the other. There was an exchange of not words between the two persons. All the

four accused including Filas tore down the cloth surrounding the booth, entered the enclosure

and began to belabour the manager, Maqbul Husain P.W. 1, and his assistant Agha Khan,

P.W. 2, with fists, kicks and lathis. The accused had overpowered the two persons, and

removed the cash box and the money lying on the table. The cash box which contained Rs.

114 was turned down by Filas, an accused, and its money was taken away by all of them.

There were a number of spectators at the spot, and it is somewhat remarkable that the carnival

staff which had arrived at the spot on hearing the alarm was not able to arrest the accused

with the help of the spectators. It is stated that this is due to the fact that the accused were

armed with lathis. The accused disappeared with the booty. The two police constables who

were on duty at the carnival premises, arrived at the spot after the accused had run away.

Maqbul Husain, the manager, received six injuries while his companion, Agha Khan,

13

received three. These injuries were simple. Maqbul Husain was advised to lodge a report at

the police station by the constables, who remained at the scene to guard the scene of

occurrence. They detained some persons who were eye-witnesses of the occurrence there.

Maqbul Husain made the first information report at the police station at 12.30 A.M. In this

report, the facts stated above are substantially repeated. The important fact which needs

special mention is that the report says that upon an altercation ensuing between the manager

and Filas accused on the question whether he had bet on a white colour or a black colour,

Filas and his companions looted all the cash in the cash box and the other money which was

lying on the table, and that when they were restrained from doing so then Filas and his

companions began to beat Maqbul Husain and Agha Khan with their lathis.

The Sub-Inspector arrived at the scene of the occurrence soon after the report was made and

examined the witnesses to the occurrence. He arrested all the accused except Filas who had

absconded. The accused denied the charge and put up a counter story which had been rejected

by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Magistrate

upon a consideration of the entire prosecution evidence concluded that all the accused were

present at the shooting stall as stated by the prosecution witnesses, and that they took part in

the assault upon the manager and his servant and that they further robbed them of the money.

He held that all the accused were guilty of an offence under S. 394, Penal Code, and

sentenced each of them to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Ss. 50.

Contentions:

Prosecution:

1) the necessary ingredients of robbery are present

Defence:

1) the necessary ingredients of the offence under S. 394, Penal Code have not been

established and a conviction under the aforementioned section is not legally

sustainable

2) According to the first information report, the beating followed the theft of cash, but

according to the evidence of the prosecution, the beating preceded the theft. The hurt

was not caused for the end of committing robbery.

14

3) The pnly person liable is Filas, who removed the cash from the box

Issues Framed

1) Whether the injury was caused before or after the theft occurred?

2) Whether the hurt caused was in relation to, or was done in order to facilitate

robbery?

3) Whether all the essentials of theft have been fulfilled?

Laws and Provisions Applied






Cases Referred to:

Prosecution:

Defence:

The Court:

1) Karuppa Gounden v. Emperor, AIR 1918 Mad 821: 38 IC 730 : 18 Cr LJ 346

2) Karmun v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Lah 407: 147 IC 99 : 35 Cr LJ 297 : 35 PLR

186

Judgement:

In the present case it cannot be contended with any show of reason that whatever injury

was caused, it was caused when the assault was made upon the stall manager and his servant

with the primary object of enabling the accused to commit the theft. I am satisfied, therefore,

15

that the assault or the beating had no relation whatever to the commission of the theft,

although there is no doubt of the fact that the theft was committed at the same time or

immediately afterwards. The court opines that the accused are not guilty of an offence under

S. 394, Penal Code. Hence, sets aside their convictions on the charge of robbery. The result

of this finding is that all the accused will, however, be liable under S. 323, Penal Code. 6.

As regards the question whether the applicants are guilty of an offence under S. 379, Penal

Code, the learned counsel on behalf of the applicants has argued that the only person liable

under this section is Filas, who according to the evidence of Kartar Singh, P.W. 6, in the

main case and of Matroo, P.W. 4, in the cognate case, alone removed the cash. This argument

ignores the other prosecution evidence on record which is unanimously points that all the

four accused removed the cash. This evidence was accepted by both the Courts below, and

it is not open to the applicants to urge in revision that in preference to that evidence the

evidence of these two witnesses, namely Matroo, P.W. 4 and Kartar Singh, p.w. 6, should be

given greater weight. The court held that all the applicants committed the theft of the cash

and are consequently liable under S. 379, Penal Code. In the opinion of the court, the ends

of justice will be sufficiently met if Bishambhar, Hitta Singh and Beche Lal, accused, are

sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each and a fine of Rs. 50 each under

S. 379, Penal Code. Roop Narain alias Filas, who appears to have taken the leading part,

deserves no reduction in sentence. He is accordingly sentenced to one year's rigorous

imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 under S. 379, Penal Code. In default of payment of fine,

each accused will undergo another six weeks rigorous imprisonment. The result is that I

allow the revision applications in part, set aside the convictions and sentences of the

applicants under S. 394, Penal Code, convict them under Ss.323, Penal Code and 379, Penal

Code, and sentence them as stated above. The sentences of rigorous imprisonment under

Ss. 323, Penal Code and 379, Penal Code, shall run concurrently.

Sentencing:

The conviction of the applicants under S. 394, Penal Code, was altered to one under S. 323,

Penal Code, and the sentence reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment under the latter

section. Bishambhar, Hitta Singh and Beche Lal, accused, are sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for six months each and a fine of Rs. 50 each under S. 379, Penal Code. Roop

16

Narain alias Filas, who appears to have taken the leading part, according to the court,

deserves no reduction in sentence. He is sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and

a fine of Rs. 50 under S. 379, Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, each accused will

undergo another six weeks rigorous imprisonment. The revision applications were allowed

in part, convictions and sentences of the applicants under S. 394 set aside Penal Code. The

court convicted them under Ss.323, Penal Code and 379, Penal Code, and sentence them as

stated above. The sentences of rigorous imprisonment under Ss. 323, Penal Code and 379,

Penal Code, shall run concurrently.

Sheo Murar and Ors. v. State on 21st April, 1954

AIR1955All128, 1955CriLJ336

Allahabad High Court

Sheo Murar…..Appellant

State……….Respondent

Bench : Justice Randhir Singh

The following are the brief facts of the case. The complainant alleged that his gram crop was

being stealthily removed from his field. When he noticed the loss on the 17th March and again

on 18th March, hecomplained to the Mukhia, who asked him if there was someone he suspected

of the theft. The complainant told the Mukhia that he had no idea about who had committed

the theft. The Mukhia advice to him was to keep a watch and find out who the culprits are.

The complainant hence sat stealthily near the 'mend' of his field on the evening of 19th March,

1952. At about 7 p.m. the four applicants came to the field with lathis in their hands. The

applicants looked on all sides after which they started uprooting gram plants. Just then, the

complainant emerged from his hiding and challenged the applicants. The applicants then

chased the complainant, abused him and decamped. A complaint was then made to the

Panchayati Adalat. The Panchayati Adalat held the applicants guilty and fined them Rs. 30/-

under Sections 379/511 and Rs. 25/- and Rs. 20/- respectively under Sections 504 and 506,

Penal Code. The applicants went for revision under Section 85, Panchayat Raj Act, to the Sub-

17

Divisional Magistrate who dismissed this application. The applicants then came up to this

Court in revision.

Contentions:

Prosecution:

The applicants are guilty under Sections 379/511 and respectively under Sections 504 and 506.

Defence:

1) This amounts to a case of robbery. Hence, the Panchayat Raj has no jurisdiction to try

such a case.

Issues Framed:

1) Whether this amounts to a case of robbery?

2) Does the Panchayat have jurisdiction in this case?

Laws and Provisions Applied:



Cases Referred to

Prosecution:

_

Defence:

1) Sant Prasad and Ors. vs. State (01.06.1951 - ALLHC) AIR 1952 All 785

Court:

1) Sant Prasad and Ors. vs. State (01.06.1951 - ALLHC) AIR 1952 All 785

18

Judgement

The only point which has been pressed on behalf of the applicants was that the facts

disclosed in the complaint amount to an offence of robbery under Section 390, Penal

Code, and this case could not be heard by a Panchayati Adalat. Reliance has been

placed on a decision of this Court in -- 'Sant Prasad v. The State: AIR 1952 All 785

(A). Section 390 has defined the offence of robbery and the relevant provisions of

robbery as follows: "Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or

in committing the theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property

obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end. voluntarily causes or attempts to

cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of

instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint." Hence, it is indicative of the fact that

theft would have become robbery only if in the committing of the theft or in order

to the committing of theft or carrying away or attempting to carry away property

obtained by theft, force was applied. In the present case the Panchayati Adalat itself

found and it was also alleged that the culprits neither took away the property nor

attempted to use force while committing theft. They were detected and in order to

escape away, it appears, they made use of force. Such an offence would not be

covered by the definition of the word "robbery" as given in Section 390 of the Indian

Penal Code.

2) In the reported case of 'Sant Prasad v. The State: AIR 1952 All 785 (A) referred to

above, it was during the act of committing theft and during the carrying away stolen

property that hurt was caused. It was held under those circumstances that the

offence did amount to robbery. But the reported case has no application to the facts

of the present case. The applicants did not make use of force or any show of force

in the act of committing theft or in attempting to take away stolen property in the

present case and the offence which they have been found guilty could not, therefore

be said to be robbery. The court hence held that the Panchayati Adalat had

jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case.

Sentencing: The application for revision has been dismissed.

19

CASES (2001-07)

1. Ashfaq v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2004 Cri LJ 936.

Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2002 with Criminal Appeal No. 1479 of 2003.

By The Hon’ble Supreme Court

Ashfaq……….. APPELLANT

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)…..RESPONDENT

BENCH: Hon’ble Doraiswamy Raju and Dr. Arijit Pasayat, JJ.

Brief Facts are as follows– Appeals in this case have been filed by two of the four

accused Ashfaq and Haroon in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. On 9.11.1991,

at about 7.15 p.m., prosecution witness Bal Kishan, owner of the house, was

witnessing a TV programme in the inner room of his house in the company of his

wife Smt. Raj Rani. The accused persons entered their house and on enquiry by Bal

Kishan when he came out of the room, was told by one of the four persons that they

were sent by one Mahabir Thekedar for white washing of their house. Among the

four accused, one was already known on account of having white washed their house.

So, Bal Kishan told them one of them that he only had already white washed the

house, and enquired about the need for it again. As the conversation was going on

like that, the accused closed the door and one of the boys took out a country-made

pistol and other took out their knives and by using such threat with such weapons

they pushed both the inmates Bal Kishan and Smt. Raj Rani inside and demanded

the keys of the almirah. Smt. Raj Rani the wife tried her best to befool them and told

them that the keys were with her daughter who resides at a different place. But as

expected she was not believed and they started searching all around here and there

for the keys and during this course one of the relatives of owner, Manoj Kumar, also

arrived there. At that point of time one of the boys opened the door and brought the

new comer also inside and ordered them all to hand over their belongings, which

included a sum of Rs. 1400/- and Rs. 200/- from Manoj Kumar. When the search

was being made, one of the accused asked Bal Kishan for the sten gun belonging to

his father, and in the process they were finally able to lay their hands on it.

Thereupon, the Sten gun with the magazine and cartridges were also taken away by

them after bolting the door from outside. On raising an alarm by the inmates the

20

neighbours came and opened the door. It appears that, the accused also removed the

gold chain in the temple which was also said to be missing. The above appellants

were tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge along with two others by

name Ikrar and Shahid for charges under Section 452 IPC, Section 392 IPC and

Section 397 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Haroon was also charged for an offence

under of the Arms Act. One of the accused Shahid, absconded and was also declared

as Proclaimed offender, after following procedure under Sections 82 &83 of the

Cr.P.C.

CONTENTIONS

I. Prosecution

The contentions of the prosecution, i.e. the respondent of this criminal appeal

case, are as follows:

1. Learned Counsel contended that the evidence on record sufficiently

established, the guilt of the accused and the reasons assigned by the

Courts below are fortified by sufficient material and consequently no

interference is called for with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

II. Defence

The contentions of the defence, i.e. the appellants of this criminal case, are

as follows:

1. It was contended that the identification of the accused in the Court

without holding a proper test identification parade earlier and at the

relevant point of time renders the evidence wholly unreliable and

completely vitiated the judgments of the Courts below and that no

reliance whatsoever could be placed on the testimony of the witnesses in

question to indict the appellants.

2. Counsel urged further that even according to the PWs it was only one

person who was said to be in possession of the country-made pistol and

in the absence of any recovery of the same or proof by concrete materials

of the role of others individually as the accused, no conviction under

Section 397 r/w Section 34 of the Penal Code was permissible and that

the necessary ingredient, to attract Section 397 of the Penal Code was

also said to be conspicuous by their absence in this case.

Daya

Highlight

21

3. It was also contended that on the facts and circumstances of the case,

when it was not shown by any evidence that the deadly weapon was

actually used or put into any use as such, Section 397 IPC cannot at all

be resorted to.

ISSUES FRAMED

The issues framed as per the above contentions were:

1.) Whether the Test Identification Parade in a robbery case, at the relevant time, is

dependent on the facts and circumstances of the case or is it always necessary for

the purpose of reliable evidence during the trial?

2.) Whether knife unlike the country made pistol, comes under the category of deadly

weapons for the purpose of Sec. 397 of IPC?

3.) Whether the actual commission of grievous hurt/death with the deadly weapon is

essential to satisfy the word ‘uses’ for the purpose of Sec. 397, IPC?

LAWS AND PROVISIONS APPLIED

Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.






CASES RELIED

Cases Relied on by:

The Defence

1. Shravan Dashrath Datrange v. State of Maharashtra 1998 Crl. L.J. 1196

The Court

1. Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat 1999 Cri LJ 5013.

2. Phool Kumar. v. Delhi Administration AIR 1975 SC 905.

22

JUDGEMENT

This appeal was dismissed.

1. As a matter of general principle, the point urged with reference to the omission to

conduct earlier the test identification Parade may be correct, the question as to

whether there is any violation of the same in a given case would very much depend

on the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any abstract general

formula for universal and ready application in all cases (Relied on Ramanbhai Patel

Case).

2. So far as the contention urged as to the applicability of Section 397 IPC and the

alleged lack of proof of the necessary ingredients therefore, is concerned it

proceeds, in court’s view, upon a misconception that unless the deadly weapon has

been actually used to inflict any injury in the commission of the offence as such,

the essential ingredient to attract the said provocation could not be held to have been

proved and substantiated. We are of the view that the said claim on behalf of the

appellants proceeds upon a too narrow construction of the provision and meaning

of the words "Uses" found in Section 397 IPC. In Phool Kumar. v.

Delhi Administration case, it was observed as follows:

“When the offence of robbery is committed by an offender being armed with a

deadly weapon which was within the vision of the victim so as to be capable of

creating a terror in his mind, the offender must be deemed to have used that deadly

weapon in the commission of the robbery. On the other hand, if an offender was

armed with a deadly weapon at the time of attempting to commit a robbery, then

the weapon was not put to any fruitful use because it would have been of use only

when the offender succeeded in committing the robbery."

3. The further plea that one accused alone, was in any event in possession of the

country-made pistol and the others could not have been vicariously held liable under

Section 397 IPC with the assistance of Section 34 IPC over-looks the other vital

facts on record found by the Courts below that the others were also armed with and

used their knives and that knife is equally a deadly weapon, for purposes of

Section 397 IPC.

23

SENTENCING

Following this observation, the Supreme Court, in this case, dismissed the

appeal and upheld the sentence imposed on the accused by the Trial Court

and the High Court.

OBITER

The provisions of Section 397, does not create any new substantive offence as such

but merely serves as complementary to Section 392 and 395 by regulating the

punishment already provided for dacoity by fixing a minimum term of imprisonment

when the dacoity committed was found attendant upon certain aggravating

circumstances viz., use of a deadly weapon, or causing of grievous hurt or attempting

to cause death or grievous hurt.

2. Aslam v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2009 SC 363.

Criminal Appeal No. 1531.

In Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Aslam @ Deewan…..APPELLANT

State of Rajasthan…..RESPONDENT

BENCH: Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.

The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

In a written report lodged by Jagdish Soni (PW-1) it was mentioned that on 24.4.2002

at about 8.30 to 8.45 p.m. his brother-in-law Shri Nand Kishore was looted by some

miscreants in between Partanion-Ka-Rasta and Gali Mahadev, who inflicted grievous

blow on his head by iron rod and snatched his bag and ran away. He was got admitted

in the Bangar Hospital.

On the basis of the above report, the police registered a chalked FIR under Section 392

IPC. During investigation of the case, accused Waseem was arrested by the police on

2.5.2002 at Kadkad-duma Court premise, Delhi, at about 3.00 p.m., and accused-

appellant Aslam was arrested on 11.5.2002 in the house of Sheokat Bhai, near Bilala

Masjit, Delhi. Accused Waseem gave an information under Section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 about the place of incident; he gave another information in respect

24

of shop from where he took one cycle on rent for the said incident, and the bag, which

was looted on the date of the incident, and told the address of the place where these

articles are lying. He gave the third information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act

about Rs. 10,000/- which were given to some property dealer to purchase a plot. In

pursuance of the aforesaid information, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was recovered in presence

of witnesses. The other recoveries were also made in pursuance of the information

given by the accused. The iron rod which was used for inflicting injury on the person

of injured Nand Kishore was also seized. The handbag and other gold items were

recovered as per the information of the accused persons. The other informations were

also given by the accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and recovery

was effected at their instance and information given in writing by them voluntarily.

CONTENSIONS

I. Prosecution



1. Learned Counsel for the State supported the judgment and requested the court

to dismiss the appeal.

II. Defence

The contentions of the defence, i.e. the appellant of this criminal appeal case, are

as follows:

1. It was submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not

sufficient to fasten the guilt on the appellant for offence punishable under

Section 394 IPC.

2. Defence contended that victim might have had the opportunity to see the

accused persons earlier and therefore Test Identification Parade is vitiated.

3. Defence counsel contended that the appellant has already suffered custody

for a considerable length of time, so his sentence should be reduced.

25

ISSUES FRAMED


1. Whether persons can be held Jointly Liable under Section 394 despite not

causing hurt during the commission of Robbery?

2. Whether there is any question of reducing sentence of the accused?

3. Whether TI Parade was vitiated from the plea of accused that victim

might have had the opportunity to see him before?


Section 27 of Indian evidence Act, 1872.

Section 392 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.


CASES RELIED

Cases Relied on by:

The Prosecution

-

The Defence

-

The Court

-

JUDGEMENT

Appeal is dismissed.

1. Section 394 postulates and contemplates the causing of harm during commission of

robbery or in attempting to commit robbery when such causing of hurt is hardly

necessary to facilitate the commission of robbery. Section 394 applies to cases

where during the course of robbery voluntary hurt is caused. Section 394 classifies

two distinct class of persons.

26

Firstly, those who actually cause hurt and secondly those who do not actually

cause hurt but are "jointly concerned" in the commission of offence of robbery.

The second class of persons may not be concerned in the causing of hurt, but

they become liable independently of the knowledge of its likelihood or a

reasonable belief in its probability.

2. In the instant case test identification parade was held. The accused persons were

identified during investigation by the injured Nand Kishore Soni in the presence of

A.C.J.M, Mukesh Jat. Victim identified the articles which were recovered in the

presence of the Magistrate Arti Bhardwaj.

3. As the identification proceeding was conducted by Mukesh Jat, the Judicial

Magistrate, the stand that victim may have got opportunity to see the accused

persons earlier was found to be without any substance by both the Trial Court and

the High Court. The identification of the articles was done in the identification

proceedings carried out by Arti Bhardwaj, Judicial Magistrate.

4. So far as the sentence is concerned, the minimum is ten years. Therefore, there is

no question of reducing the sentence, though the appellant's stand was that the

appellant has already suffered custody for a considerable length of time. Same is of

no consequence. The Trial Court has also noted that both the accused persons are

habitual offenders and appeals involving similar offences were pending before the

High Court.

SENTENCE

Since in the instant case minimum sentence had been awarded, Supreme Court founded

no reason to interfere with the appeal and upheld the sentence of Trial and High Courts.

OBITER

Section 394 describes punishment for voluntary causing hurt in committing or

attempting to commit robbery. The offence under this section is more serious offence

than one under Section 392.

27

3. Niranjan Singh v. State of M.P., 2007 Cri LJ 3523.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 487 of 2001 and 868 of 2002.

In the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Niranjan Singh……. APPELLANT.

State of Madhya Pradesh…..RESPONDENT.

BENCH - Dr. Arijit Pasayat and B.P. Singh, JJ.

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On 2nd June 1986 the accused persons had entered the shop of Babulal while he was in

the process of closing. One shutter was already put and one shutter was still to be put.

Accused entered the shop at about 9.15 p.m. and asked for a sum of Rs.1001/- from

Babulal and asked him the reason why he had offered only two 'Ilachis' when the three

persons had come to the shop the previous day. At that time injured Babulal and his

brother Munnalal were present and they were settling the account. Babulal was having

Rs.400/- in his hands. Ramsahay and Niranjan asked to hand over Rs.1000/-. On refusal

of the Babulal, Ramsahay inflicted one injury on his right arm with a knife. Another

injury was caused on left side of chest by knife. Niranjan Singh snatched the 400 rupees.

It was alleged that one more boy was accompanying the accused persons whose name

was not known. The incident was witnessed by Santosh Kumar and Jinendra Kumar.

On medical examination of injured Babulal one injury was found on the left side of

chest below the nipple and the other injury was on the left arm. Both the injuries were

caused by hard and sharp weapon. The clothes of Babulal were seized which carried

corresponding sign of insertion of knife. A knife was recovered from the possession of

accused Niranjan. Accused Sitaram was put up for identification parade by Mulle Singh

who was Sarpanch of the village. The money which was allegedly looted could not be

recovered from the accused. The accused abjured the guilt. Accused Sitaram contended

that he was falsely implicated in the case. Accused Niranjan took the defence that he

was standing in front of the shop of Munnalal and accused Ramsahay was demanding

money from Babulal which was due from him. On that altercation took place between

Munnalal and Ramsahay and there was a scuffle. The accused intervened and separated

the two. As the accused Niranjan sided with Ramasahay, his name was also mentioned

in the array of accused. Ramsahay took the plea that Rs.1050/- were due from Babulal

on account of purchase of 'Char' which was payable to his uncle and when money was

28

demanded an altercation took place. No incident of robbery took place. Knife was not

recovered from him.

CONTENSIONS

I. Prosecution



1. Counsel contended that for attracting Section 397 IPC it is not necessary

that grievous hurt should be found.

2. He further contended that Ingredients of the provision are satisfied if the

evidence on record establishes that grievous hurt was intended.

II. Defence

The contentions of the defence, i.e. the appellant of this criminal appeal case, are

as follows:

1. Though several points were urged by the Defence, the primary stand was that

ingredients under Section 397 IPC were not made out as no grievous hurt was

found.

ISSUES FRAMED


1. Knife blow given on the chest below the nipple – Section 397 whether

attracted?

2. What are the ingredients for Section 397?





Section 397 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

29

CASES RELIED

Cases Relied on by:

The Prosecution

-

The Defence

-

The Court

-

JUDGEMENT

The Appeal is dismissed.

1. The ingredients of the offence are as under:

The commission of robbery or dacoity as described in Section 392 and 395

respectively;

the accused-

(a) used a deadly weapon, or

(b) caused grievous hurt, or

(c) attempted to cause death or grievous hurt;

he did so at the time of committing the robbery or dacoity.

2. Grievous hurt is defined in Section 320 IPC. This Section reads as follows:

Grievous hurt: The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":

First - Emasculation

Secondly - Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.

Thirdly - Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.

Fourthly - Privation of any member of joint.

Fifthly - Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or

join.

Sixthly - Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.

Seventhly - Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.

Eighthly - Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be

during the space of twenty days in severe bodily paid, or unable to follow his

ordinary pursuits.

30

3. The facts of the instant case show that Section 397 IPC was rightly applied. Any

hurt which endangers life is a grievous hurt. It would be seen that one of the injuries

was caused just below the nipple. The term "endangers life" is much stronger than

the expression "dangerous to life". Apart from that in the provision "attempt" to

cause grievous hurt attracts its application. The question whether the accused

attempted to cause death or grievous hurt would depend upon the factual scenario.

In the instant case knife blow was given on the chest just below the nipple.

Considering the place where injury was inflicted i.e. on the chest the High Court

was right in its view about the applicability of Section 397 IPC.

SENTENCE

Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence given by High Court.

OBITER

Any hurt, which endangers life, is a grievous hurt.

4. State of Karnataka v. David Rozario, 2002 Cri LJ 4127.

Decided On: 17.09.2002

In Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

State of Karnataka………..APPLELLANT

David Razario and Anr…..RESPONDENT

BENCH: Hon’ble U.C. Banerjee and Dr. Arijit Pasayat, JJ.

The deceased had three children who reside abroad. She was staying alone in her house

in the evening of 20.12.1986. A maid-servant Tayarmma was working in her house and

also worked in the house of Mrs. Joyce, wife of Holmes. The maid servant as usual

served coffee to the deceased and went to the house of Mrs. Joyce to work there, and

was there till about 8.00 p.m. Thereafter, she left the place to go to her house, which

was situated on the back side of deceased's house. When she was near the house of the

deceased, she saw the electric lights in the house of the deceased were burning, and also

noticed that the front door of the house was closed. While the back door was open she

entered the house of the deceased through back door and came to the hall, where she

31

saw the deceased sitting on a chair with blood all over the body. The deceased had

sustained head injury, which was bleeding. The maid servant ran out screaming to the

house of Mrs. Joyce and brought her husband along with her to the house of deceased.

They also called some another person. They took the deceased in injured condition to

the Nursing Home of Bikram Chand. Since the deceased had sustained injuries on the

head, in spite of treatment she could not regain consciousness and passed away around

mid-night. Police was informed and First information report was accordingly recorded

and investigation was undertaken. On 26.12.1986 information was gathered by the

Investigating Officer about one tape recorder which was missing from the house of the

deceased. The tape recorder was of foreign make. It came to light that the said tape

recorder was gifted by her daughter to the deceased. Some days after the date of the

incident the accused persons were arrested in another case of theft of a T.V. set.

Accused No. 2 led the Investigating Officer and others to a shop where Dilip Ghodke,

the owner of the shop was asked to bring the tape recorder which accused had sold to

him, after redeeming the same from the pawn broker Mohammed Ilyas. Relevant pawn

ticket receipts were seized by the Investigating Officer. On the basis of the information

given by the accused persons recovery was made of the weapon i.e. an Iron Rod. The

Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of evidence on record found the accused-

appellants guilty under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and Section 392 r/w Section 34 of

the IPC, 1860. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 5 years respectively for the aforesaid two offences. But,

the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court set aside the conviction and State filed

an appeal in the Supreme Court to set aside the decision of respective High Court.

CONTENTIONS

I. Prosecution

The contentions of the prosecution, i.e. the appellant of this criminal appeal case,

are as follows:

1. Learned counsel for appellant-State submitted that the High Court by a

sketchy and practically non-reasoned order has set aside the conviction.

II. Defence

The contentions of the prosecution, i.e. the appellant of this criminal appeal case,

are as follows:

32

1. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the High

Court has rightly stressed upon the fact that the tape recorder was of very small

value and two persons could not have taken the life of an elder lady.

2. He also contended that, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was applied

by the trial court to record conviction when the same cannot be the only

foundation for conviction.

ISSUES FRAMED


1. Whether commission of theft of an article of very small value with murder

be put into the category of Robbery with the murder?

2. Whether the evidence relating to recovery is sufficient to fasten guilt on

the accused?

3. Whether prosecution case was based only on the evidence in terms of Section

27 or also on other evidence?





Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.




CASES RELIED

Cases Relied on by:

The Prosecution

-

The Defence

-

33

The Court

1. Md. Inayatollah v. State of Maharashtra 1976 Cri LJ 481.

2. Delhi Admn. v. Balakrishan 1972 Cri LJ 1.

3. Palukuri Kotayya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67.

4. State of Maharashtra v. Danu Gopinath Shirde and Ors. 2000 Cri LJ

2301.

JUDGEMENT

The appeal is allowed.

1. Plea that no one would kill an old lady for a small thing like tape recorder, is

really based on suppositions. Robbery can be made of articles which are easy

to be disposed of. Articles of a particular category, for example, electronic goods

may be preferred. Without going into the merits of that case, it can only be said

by way of illustration that there may be fascination for selling goods of

particular category which are easy to carry and are easily disposable. In view of

the credible evidence on record, it is not necessary to fathom as to what was in

the mind of the accused or find out why valuable articles were not lifted. This

is not a case where the prosecution case rests only on the evidence in terms of

Section 27 of the Evidence Act. That was only one of the pieces of evidence. It

is, therefore, not necessary to decide the question as to whether conviction can

be recorded only on the basis of such recovery.

2. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is by way of proviso to Sections 25 to 26

and a statement even by way of confession made in police custody which

distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the

accused. This position was succinctly dealt with by this Court in Delhi Admn.

V. Balakrishan and Md. Inayatollah v. State of Maharashtra cases. The words

so much of such information" as relates distinctly to the fact thereby

discovered, are very important and the whole force of the section concentrates

on them. Clearly the extent of the information admissible must depend on the

exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to

relate. The object of the provision i.e. Section 27 was to provide for the

34

admission of evidence which but for the existence of the section could not in

consequence of the preceding sections, be admitted in evidence. It would

appear that under Section 27 as it stands in order to render the evidence

leading to discovery of any fact admissible, the information must come from

any accused in custody of the police.

3. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of fact

envisaged in the section. Decision of Privy Council in Palukuri Kotayya v.

Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67, is the most quoted authority for supporting the

interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the section embraces

the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the

accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that

effect. No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is

confirmed to that portion of the information which "distinctly relates to the

fact thereby discovered". But the information to get admissibility need not

be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of

information admitted should be consistent with understandability. Mere

statement that the accused led the police and the witnesses to the place where

he had concealed the article is not indicative of the information given.

SENTENCE

The impugned order of the High Court is set aside, and that of the trial Court is

restored.

OBITER

It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused and prosecution

that information given should be recorded and proved and if not so recorded,

the exact information must be adduced through evidence.

35

CASES (2008-13)

1. Anil S/O. Lilachand Sarjare v. State Of Maharashtra on 6 February, 2012

Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 2007

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench, Nagpur)

Anil S/O. Lilachand Sarjare ... APPELLANT

State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT

BENCH: Justice M. N. Gilani

The brief facts of this case are as follows. On 28.11.2006, at about 11 p.m., the

complainant, Imran Khan, was returning home when he was stopped by four persons

on a motorcycle who demanded his mobile phone. When he refused to part with it, one

of the culprits dealt him a knife-blow on his abdomen. Imran Khan raised an alarm

which caught the attention of passers-by. Imran Khan succeeded in catching hold of

one of the culprits but the others fled away. Police soon arrived on the spot and Imran

Khan was taken to a hospital where his statement was recorded and on that basis a

complaint was filed with the Police Station in Nagpur. The first accused, who was

apprehended on the spot, was carried to the police station for interrogation. On

29.11.2006, the second accused was also arrested and during investigation, one knife

and one motorcycle found lying on the spot were seized. The statements of the passers-

by witnesses were also recorded. On 21.12.2006, the third accused was also arrested

and at his instance, one motorcycle, a mobile handset and some clothes were seized.

After the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted. According to Imran Khan, the

first accused whom he had apprehended was the one who had stabbed him. The

prosecution, in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, examined 12 witnesses. After

considering the evidence, mainly that of the complainant Imran Khan which was

supported by medical evidence, and two other passers-by witnesses, the learned

Sessions Judge convicted the first accused of an offence punishable under S.307 r/w

S.34 and under S.397 r/w S.34 of the IPC and sentenced him to four years and seven

years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The two sentences were ordered to run

concurrently. The other two accused were acquitted due to lack of sufficient evidence.

The appellant-accused, in this case, has challenged his conviction under S.307 r/w S.34

and under S.397 r/w S.34 of the IPC and submitted for the judgment to be set aside. We

shall mainly focus on the basis of his conviction under S.397 r/w S.34 of the IPC.

36

CONTENTIONS

I. Prosecution

The contentions of the prosecution, i.e. the respondents of this criminal appeal


1. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contended that there is

overwhelming evidence to bring home guilt of the accused under S.397

r/w S.34 and under S.307 r/w S.34 of the IPC and submitted for the

appeal to be dismissed.

II. Defence

The contentions of the defence, i.e. the appellant of this criminal appeal case,

are as follows:

1. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that the learned

Sessions Judge had committed an error in appreciating the evidence that

was brought on record by the prosecution. He contended that the

averments in the FIR (first information report) do not point to the theft

of the mobile phone and that the facts, at the most, point to an attempt

to commit robbery.

2. The learned counsel further criticized the conviction of the accused for

the offence under S. 397 r/w S. 34 of the IPC. According to him, there

was no evidence to point out that the accused was in possession of the

knife or that he was the author of the injury sustained by the complainant

Imran Khan. His next submission was that the framing of the offence

under S.397 r/w S.34 of the IPC was itself incorrect.

3. Further, there was no proof that the accused-appellant had dealt the

knife-blow on the person of Imran Khan and hence, his conviction under

S.307 r/w S.34 of the IPC was wholly unwarranted. He, therefore,

submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge be

set aside.

ISSUES FRAMED

37


1. Whether the accused-appellant was the author of the injury sustained by the

complainant, Imran Khan?

2. Whether the offence was only an attempt to commit robbery since there was no proven

theft involved?

3. Whether the conviction of the accused-appellant under S.307 r/w S.34 is sustainable?

4. Whether the conviction of the accused-appellant under S.397 r/w S.34 is sustainable?



Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860





CASES RELIED

Cases relied on by:

Prosecution:

-

Defence:

-

The Court:

1) Emperor vs. Ali Mirza AIR 1924 Cal 643

2) Dulli and Ors. vs. Emperor AIR 1925 All 305

3) Phool Kumar vs. Delhi Administration 1975 AIR 905

4) Ashfaq vs. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) AIR 2004 SC 1253

5) Mahabir Singh vs. State Of U.P. 1997 Cri L.J. 1703

6) Rajjo alias Gingin and Etc. vs. The State 1999 Cri L.J. 2996

7) Kushal and Ors. vs. State 2003 Cri L.J. 3458

38

JUDGEMENT

This appeal was partly allowed.

1. Since the evidence adduced did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-

appellant was in possession of the knife and that he was the author of the knife blow to

Imran Khan, the High Court sets aside the order for convicting the appellant under S.

307 r/w S. 34 of the IPC. The witness testimonies are also contradictory which aid the

accused-appellant in creating reasonable doubt in the minds of the judges as to whether

he stabbed the complainant or not.

2. Since there was no record as to whether the mobile phone was stolen or not and also

since Imran Khan, the complainant, claims that he did not hand over the phone to the

accused, the offence would only amount to an attempt to commit robbery. There was

also no proof provided of a common intention among the four culprits so as to hold

them liable under S. 307 r/w S. 34 and S. 397 r/w S. 34 of the IPC. Hence, accused

cannot be charged under S. 34 read with the other two sections.

Also, when the charge was framed under S.397, which embodies the ingredients of

voluntarily causing hurt or attempting to cause death in commission of robbery, then

there was no necessity of charging the accused under S.307 of the IPC.

3. Most importantly, the High Court held that S. 397 and S. 398 of the IPC do not create

any substantial offence but they only serve to regulate the measure of punishment when

certain facts have been found in an aggravated situation. Therefore, there cannot be a

charge simply under S.397 of the IPC. The charge has to be either under S. 392 r/w S.

397 or under S. 394 r/w S. 397 of the IPC. Moreover, since S. 397 does not refer to any

substantial offence, S. 34 of the IPC would be inapplicable. The word "offender" in

S.397 refers only to the person(s) who is proved to have actually used the deadly

weapon and not to the others, who, in combination with such person(s), have committed

robbery. Therefore, S.34 of IPC has no application in construction of S.397 and S.398

though it may be r/w Ss. 392 or 394 of the IPC to determine the substantial offence.

4. In the light of the aforesaid legal position and in the premise of the evidence brought

on record, the conviction of the accused under S. 397 r/w S. 34 and S. 307 r/w S. 34 of

the IPC were set aside. Instead, the accused was held liable to be convicted for an

offence punishable under S. 394 r/w S. 34 of the IPC.

39

SENTENCING

The appellant-accused was convicted for an offence punishable under S.394 r/w S.34 of the

IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-

(Rs. Five Hundred Only), in default of which he was to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one

month.

OBITER

Section 397 and 398 of the Penal Code do not create any offence but regulate the measure of

punishment when certain facts are found. Section 34 of the Penal Code has no application in

the construction of Ss. 397 and 398, although it may be read with Ss. 392 and 395 to determine

the substantive offence which is created.

2. Venu @ Venugopal and Ors. v. State of Karnataka on 30 January, 2008


Supreme Court of India

Venu @ Venugopal and Ors. ... PETITIONER/APPELLANT

State of Karnataka ... RESPONDENT

BENCH: Justice Arijit Pasayat & Justice P. Sathasivam

The brief facts of this case are as follows. On 24.06.2001, the two complainants were

travelling on the highway on a Bajaj scooter when they were intercepted by four of the

accused persons who robbed them of their gold ornaments including a gold chain, gold

earrings, a thali and some cash and also their scooter by threatening them with a knife. The

accused then tied the legs and hands of the two complainants and threatened them against

escaping and getting out of the place for about ten minutes after their departure. The

victims, after freeing themselves, made their way to the nearest police station and lodged a

First Information Report as on 25.06.2001. The Traffic Police then caught three of the

accused going on the stolen scooter that they had robbed from the complainants. They also

discovered deadly weapons including knives, pistols and an iron rod, hidden inside the

40

scooter. On interrogation, the accused persons admitted to the commission of the offence.

At the instance of one of the accused, some of the gold jewellery was recovered from a

pawn broker, who later became a witness for the prosecution. The gold earrings and the

chain were recovered from another witness who testified that the stolen items were pledged

to him by one of the accused. The accused were identified by the complainants as the

persons who had robbed them. The prosecution claimed that the identification of the

accused persons by the two victims coupled with the recovery of the jewellery at the

instance of the accused and seizure of the scooter from three of the accused unfailingly

established the guilt of the four accused who had committed the robbery. The investigating

agency submitted a charge sheet for the alleged commission of an offence punishable under

Section 395 of IPC. Section 395 pertains to dacoity. The case was split up against another

three accused as they were absconding.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence on hand convicted

the accused of the offence punishable under S. 395 of the IPC. The two other accused, who

were absconding, were acquitted due to the insufficiency of evidence. Considering the

gravity of the offence, a custodial sentence of 10 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.

5,000/- on each was imposed. In appeal to the Karnataka High Court, the High Court found

that the offence committed was covered under Section 392 IPC but, considering the gravity

of the offence, upheld the sentence. This appeal was admitted through a Special Leave

Petition by the Supreme Court of India.

CONTENTIONS

I. Appellant

The contentions of the accused-appellants of this criminal appeal case are as

follows:

1. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence of the

complainant victims does not show that any knife was used for the

robbery.

2. It was also submitted that since the appellants have suffered custody of

more than nearly 8 years, the sentence deserves to be reduced to the

period already undergone.

41

II. Respondent

The contentions of the respondent-State of this criminal appeal case are as

follows:

1. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that there is no

minimum sentence prescribed for robbery and that the maximum

sentence is 10 years.

2. It is also submitted that since the robbery was committed on the highway

at about 9.00 p.m., the sentence can be extended up to 14 years and

considering the gravity of the offence and the commonality of large scale

highway robberies, no leniency should be shown.

ISSUES FRAMED


1. Whether robbery was committed or not?

2. Whether highway robbery was committed or not?

3. Whether there must be reduction of the sentence imposed on the accused?






CASES RELIED

Cases relied on by:

Appellant:

42

-

Respondent:

-

The Court:

1) State of Karnataka vs. Puttaraja 2004 (1) SCC 475

JUDGEMENT

The appeal was dismissed.

1. The Judges considered the essential ingredients which were required for the

commission of robbery and concluded that the offence in this case, did amount

to robbery. The essential ingredients for the commission of robbery are as

follows:

i. Accused committed theft.

ii. Accused voluntarily caused or attempted to cause:

a. Death, hurt or wrongful restraint.

b. Fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint.

iii. He did either act for the end:

a. To commit theft.

b. While committing theft.

c. In carrying away or in the attempt to carry away property

obtained by the theft.

2. Section 392 of the IPC provides the punishment for robbery. It is the punishment

for the offence defined in Section 390. The punishment is higher (up to 14 years)

if it is committed on a highway between sunset and sunrise. Since it was

established that the offence in this case was committed on a public road, which

was not disputed as a highway, and since it was committed between sunset and

sunrise (9:00 p.m.), deterrent punishment was called for.

43

3. It was observed by this Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja as

follows:

"Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in

many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime

e.g. where it relates to offences against women like the case at hand, dacoity,

kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences

involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact and

serious repercussions on social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight

of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing

meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic a view merely on account of lapse

of time or considerations personal to the accused only in respect of such

offences will be resultwise counterproductive in the long run and against

societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by the required

string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system."

Following this observation, the Supreme Court, in this case, dismissed the

appeal in view of the larger societal interest of preventing crimes such as

highway robberies.

SENTENCING

The Supreme Court upheld the sentence imposed on the accused by the Trial Court and the

High Court and dismissed the appeal.

OBITER

The punishment for an offence of robbery (S. 390) is higher if it is committed on the highway

between sunset and sunrise and imposing a meagre sentence in such cases would go against

the larger societal interest.

44

3. Amarjit Singh v. State NCT Of Delhi on 3 November, 2009

Criminal M. C. No. 1330 of 2007

Delhi High Court

Amarjit Singh ... APPELLANT/PETITIONER

State NCT of Delhi ... RESPONDENT

BENCH: Justice Indermeet Kaur

The brief facts of this case are as follows. On 17.03.2001, at around 6.00 p.m., the

complainant Radhey Shyam was driving a canter (a light-duty commercial vehicle)

owned by Prem Singh Sharma when he was stopped by a Maruti Esteem car on the

road. Four well-built persons got out of the Maruti car and forced Radhey Shyam and

his helper to forcibly get out of the canter. The keys and the canter were forcibly taken

away by the four men. On the basis of this complaint, an investigation was set into

motion. In the course of the investigation, the name of the current petitioner, Amarjit

Singh, had cropped up. It was found that the petitioner in this case was the financer of

the canter and the owner of the Inter State Finance Company. It was alleged that he had

instigated the four persons, who were his employees, to forcibly recover the canter from

Radhey Shyam. The Court of the ACMM (Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate),

on 28.05.2005, had passed an order against all the five accused persons for framing of

charge under S. 392 r/w S. 120-B of the IPC. The framing of the formal charge was

kept in abeyance under the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge. On 02.02.2006, the

order of the ACMM was affirmed in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge. It was

held that an offence under S. 392 r/w S. 120-B of the IPC had been made out. On

18.08.2006, formal charges were framed against the accused persons, including the

present petitioner, under S. 392 r/w S. 120-B of the IPC, as also a separate criminal

charge under S. 120-B of the IPC for criminal conspiracy. A letter written by Amarjit

Singh to his recovery agent Pawan Kumar, one of the other co-accused, authorizing the

repossession of the canter was considered by the Court to uphold the view taken by the

ACMM that a prima facie case had been made out. In the present petition, the orders

45

of the Court of ACMM and the Additional Sessions Judge framing the said charges

against the accused petitioner have been challenged.

CONTENTIONS

I. Appellant

The contentions of the accused-appellant are as follows:

1. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the perusal of the FIR

does not disclose the ingredients of an offence under Section 392 of the

IPC. The role of the petitioner Amarjit Singh had also not been entailed

therein. Attention was drawn to the definition of “robbery” as contained

in Section 390 of the IPC. Robbery is either theft or extortion, and both

theft and extortion emphasis on the offender. The explanation contained

in Section 390 was also highlighted. It was submitted that in the absence

of the presence of the person on the spot where the offence was

committed, the ingredients of Section 390 are not made out. And

therefore, the charge framed under Section 392, which is the penal

provision for robbery, is unsustainable.

2. The petitioner also submitted that Section 390 is contained in Chapter

XVII of the IPC and that Chapter-XVII of the IPC relates to offences

against property and each of these offences speak of the presence of the

offender, in the absence of which an offence under this Chapter cannot

be sustained. The only exception mentioned is dacoity (Section 391 of

the IPC). Also, criminal conspiracy which is defined under Section 120-

A of the IPC cannot be clubbed with the offence under Section 392 of

the IPC. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was

present at the time when the offence was committed i.e., when the canter

was forcibly taken away from Radhey Shyam. The presence of the

petitioner at the time of the commission of the offence is a necessary

pre-requisite to establish the offence under Section 392 of the IPC. This

not being the position in the present case, the impugned order of the

framing of charges under Section 392 r/w Section 120-B of the IPC and

of Section 120-B of the IPC is liable to be set aside.

46

3. It was also submitted that the offence under Section 397 of the IPC

pertains to the actual offender and that it is an individual offence and

applying the same analogy to the offence under Section 392 of the IPC,

which is contained in the same Chapter, relating to an offence against

property in the absence of the presence of the petitioner at the spot of

the commission of the offence, Section 392 of the IPC is not made out.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the dispute

between the parties, if any, arose out of a civil liability based on a hire-

purchase agreement where admittedly certain amounts were due from

the employer of Radhey Shyam, i.e., Prem Singh Sharma and that this

could not have become the subject matter of a criminal trial.

II. Respondent

The counter-contentions of the respondent-State are as follows:

1. Attention was drawn to Chapter XVI of the IPC i.e., the offences

affecting the human body. Section 341 is the penal provision for

wrongful restraint and it is explained that the physical presence of the

obstructer is not necessary in such cases. It was submitted that it is, thus,

clear that there is no chapter-wise distinction in the IPC and the presence

of a person at the time of the commission of an offence may or may not

be material depending upon the facts of each case. Otherwise, the

provisions of Section 120-B of the IPC would become redundant.

2. Also, under Section 397 of the IPC, the emphasis is on the word "uses"

and it is the usage of the deadly weapon by the offender which makes

the offence an individual offence. It was submitted that the same analogy

cannot be applied to the provisions of Section 392 of the IPC.

3. It was further submitted that the guidelines set up by the Supreme Court

in the 2002 case of Amitabh Verma v. Commissioner of Police have to

be followed by financial companies in the strict sense before they

exercise their powers to repossess any vehicle.

4. A writ petition seeking the quashing of this FIR was also dismissed vide

order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 05.04.2002.

47

ISSUES FRAMED


1. Whether an offence under Section 390 of the IPC can be made out against a person if

there was no presence of the person on the spot where the offence was committed?

2. Whether the role of the petitioner in the offence can be taken into account considering

that his particular role in the offence was not mentioned in the FIR?

3. Whether there was an offence of robbery under Section 390 of the IPC and of criminal

conspiracy under Section 120-A of the IPC?

4. Whether an offence under Section 392 of the IPC can be clubbed with an offence of

conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC?







Section 120-A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 120-B of The Indian Penal Code, 1860

CASES RELIED

Cases relied on by:

Appellant:

1) S. D. Dutrange v. State of Maharashtra 1997(2) Crime 47

2) W. A. Chauriappa v. State of Maharashtra 1995 Cri. L. J. 4042

Respondent:

1) Madala Peraiah & Ors. v. Voruganti Chendriah AIR 1954 Madras 247

2) Ashfaq v. State AIR 2004 SC 1253

48

3) Amitabh Verma v. Commissioner of Police 2002(3) JCC 2118

The Court:

1) Keshav Tyagi v. State 2007 DLT 672

2) Munna v. State AIR 2003 SC 3805

JUDGEMENT

The petition was dismissed by the High Court.

1. Although the FIR in this case was initially registered under S. 392 r/w S. 34 of the IPC

against the four persons who physically repossessed the vehicle from Radhey Shyam,

thereafter, in the course of investigation, the role of the present petitioner Amarjit

Singh was unravelled. The role of the present petitioner figured only in the course of

the investigation and it is obvious that for this reason his name was not mentioned in

the FIR. It is settled law that an FIR is not an encyclopedia expected to contain all the

details of the prosecution case. The letter written by Amarjit Singh to his recovery

agent Pawan Kumar, one of the other co-accused, authorizing the repossession of the

canter was considered by the Court to establish the role of the present accused.

2. The charge sheet was initially filed under S. 392 r/w S. 34 of the IPC. But on the

material before the Court, the charge had thereafter been framed under S. 392 r/w S.

120-B of the IPC. Section 120-A, which defines a criminal conspiracy, includes the

doing of an illegal act or the doing of a legal act by illegal means. The evidence on

record had established that it was at the behest of Amarjit Singh that the canter was

forcibly repossessed. It was a robbery committed on a highway. The ingredients of

Section 392 of the IPC are clearly attracted. Offence was also committed at the asking

and at the instigation of Amarjit Singh and the criminal conspiracy had been hatched

on his initiation and therefore, Section 120-B of the IPC is also rightly attracted.

3. The court also dismissed the submission by the appellant-accused that Section 392 of

the IPC cannot be clubbed with an offence under Section 120-B of the IPC. Also,

Section 120-B is a substantive offence in itself. It held that the intention of the

legislature was not to make the provisions of S. 120-B of the IPC so as to be

incompatible to be read with S. 392 of the IPC. A co-joint reading of Section 392 and

120-B of the IPC would dismiss any such contention as was presented by the counsel

49

for the petitioner. Also, the Supreme Court has upheld convictions under S. 392 r/w S.

120-B in the cases of Keshav Tyagi v. State and Munna v. State and hence, the

arguments of the petitioner are without any merit.

4. The Court, in the present case, also held that the participation of an accused without

being present at the spot is clearly covered by Section 120-B of the IPC. The Court

also held that an offence under Section 392 of the IPC is not individual in the sense as

it is under Section 397 of the IPC and that Section 397 only serves to increase the

liability on the person who uses a deadly weapon and serves no other purpose.

SENTENCING

The Delhi High Court, after dismissing the petition, directed the Trial Court to take up the case

expeditiously.

OBITER

Unless it has been provided, the presence of the person in the spot of the commission of an

offence of robbery is not necessary in order to hold him liable.

4. Rajesh @ Rajbir v. State on 11 March, 2010


Delhi High Court

Rajesh @ Rajbir ... APPELLANT

State ... RESPONDENT

BENCH: Justice V. K. Jain

The brief facts of this case are as follows. On 08.11.2001, the complainant Vedpal filed a

complaint alleging that while he was boarding a bus to go someplace that day, he was

surrounded by 3-4 boys who started manhandling him and that one of them removed Rs.

5,300 /- which he was carrying in the pocket of his pant. When the complainant tried to

hold his hand to stop him, the boy handed over the money to his associate. One of the other

associates removed the complainant’s purse which was kept in his hip pocket. The

complainant then dragged the boy, whose hand he had caught, out of the bus. The boy’s

50

associates also got out in order to help their accomplice. The boy, who the complainant had

dragged out, then pulled out a knife and gave a blow to the complainant’s left knee, as a

result of which he fell down. His other companion gave a blow on the complainant’s pocket.

The complainant, despite being injured, managed to catch one of them. He was also dealt

a knife blow on his back by one of the boy’s other companions. In the meantime, PCR

officials who had witnessed the incident from the other side of the road came to the

complainant’s aid. Seeing this, the other boys ran away. The person, whom the complainant

Vedpal had apprehended is the appellant Rajesh. He was identified as the person who had

dealt a knife blow to the complainant’s knee and a knife and some of the complainant’s

money (Rs. 4,400/-) were recovered from him. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses in

support of its case, including the PCR officials and the driver and conductor of the bus,

while the defence examined none. The trial court, after considering the evidence, convicted

the appellant under S. 394 r/w S. 397 of the IPC. The appellant was awarded the minimum

prescribed punishment of seven years for his offence of robbery. The appellant has

challenged his conviction by the Trial Court through this appeal case. The contentions of

the appellant are mainly based on two grounds, which are highlighted below.

CONTENTIONS

I. Appellant

The contentions of the accused-appellant are as follows:

1. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to disprove the prosecution’s case

by pointing out certain contradictions among the prosecution witnesses’

testimonies. He submitted that, due to these discrepancies, the guilt of the

appellant had not been established beyond reasonable doubt and therefore,

the conviction was liable to be set aside.

2. He also submitted that since no opinion was obtained from a doctor as to

whether the injury caused to the person was caused by the knife alleged to

have been recovered from the appellant, therefore, Section 397 cannot be

applied in this case.

II. Respondent

The contentions of the respondent-State are as follows:

51

1. The State submitted that the conviction by the Trial Court was correct

and that the appellant was liable for an offence under S. 394 r/w S. 397

of the IPC.

ISSUES FRAMED


1. Whether certain contradictions in the witnesses’ testimonies can lead to questioning

of the conviction or acquittal of an accused?

2. Whether the proven usage of a deadly weapon is necessary to attract the liability

under Section 397 of the IPC?






Section 313 of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

CASES RELIED

Cases relied on by:

Appellant:

-

Respondent:

-

The Court:

1) Krishna Mochi v. State 2002 IV AD (SC) 45

2) Duli Chand v. State of Haryana and Anr. AIR 1999 SC 3717

3) Dhanvir and Ors. v. The State 85 (2000) DLT 711

4) Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration AIR 1975 SC 905

5) Salim v. State 1987 (3) Crimes 794

6) State of Maharashtra v. Vinayak 1997 Cri. L. J. 3988

52

JUDGEMENT

The appeal was dismissed by the High Court.

1. The High Court, in this particular case, dismissed the contention of the appellant which

sought to question the reliability of the prosecution’s case by pointing out certain

contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses. The High Court held

that the contradictions singled out by the accused-appellant’s counsel in this case were

peripheral and trivial to the core of the case and that it is improper to reject the

testimonies of witnesses on account of minor variations in trivial details. It is not

imperative that the testimonies of all the witnesses must corroborate with one another

even on minor issues and details. It is also an accepted legal position that if the Trial

Court found the testimony of a witness to be honest and reliable then, the Appellate

Court should not take a stand to the contrary, unless it is backed up with sufficient

reason. Also, it was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Mochi v. State in

2002, that normal discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses due to the normal errors

of memory due to the passage of time and due to mental disposition are always present

and that it is not proper to reject the truthful testimony of a witness on such grounds.

The High Court held that the contradictions highlighted by the counsel for the accused-

appellant do not destroy the credibility and reliability of the complaint as backed up by

the witnesses.

2. The second contention of the appellant, which is more pertinent in the commission of

an offence of robbery and questioned the application of S. 397 of the IPC in this case,

was also dismissed by the High Court. The High Court declared this contention as

totally misconceived. It was held that even if a person carries a deadly weapon and it is

seen by the victim in the commission of the robbery, then it will amount to the use of

that weapon in the commission of the offence. The testimonies of the complainant and

the witnesses also confirm that the accused, Rajbir, was indeed the person who

committed the crime of robbing and causing injury to the complainant. It is thus clear

that his offence falls under S. 390 of the IPC. It was also declared by this Court in the

case of Salim v. State that it is inappropriate to categorise a knife or to fix its size for it

to be held as deadly weapon. The Bombay High Court, held in the case of State of

Maharashtra v. Vinayak that a knife is a ‘deadly weapon’ under the ambit of the

expression “deadly weapon” under S. 397 of the IPC irrespective of its size and that

any knife is a deadly weapon.

53

SENTENCING

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence of the Trial Court in

sentencing him to the minimum prescribed punishment of seven years imprisonment. It also

upheld the fine imposed on the accused by the Trial Court. However, on default of the payment

of the fine, the High Court reduced his sentence to 15 days rigorous imprisonment instead of

three months as was declared by the Trial Court.

OBITER

Even if a person carries a deadly weapon and it is seen by the victim in the commission of the

offence of robbery, then it will amount to the use of that weapon in the commission of the said

offence.

54

CONCLUSION

Robbery has been a serious offence since the inception of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is

seen as a grave crime against the society. Since it is perceived as a serious crime, the courts

have clearly stipulated the essentials through interpretations from time to time that constitute

this crime. This project throws light on the various interpretations by various courts in India

over the past hundred and fifty years. On the basis of cases analysed in this project it has been

noticed that much importance is given to the fulfilment of the essential ingredients in the period

before the year 2001. The pertinent question deliberated on by the courts during this period

was - to what ‘end’ the violence was used during the commission of the offence?

As far as the cases which we have dealt with during the period between 2001 and 2013,

emphasis has been placed by the courts with regard to finer details and construction of the

provisions laid down in the IPC with respect to definition and punishments imposed for the

commission of this offence. Courts have attempted to deal with various questions of law that

have been raised pertaining to the ambit and scope of Section 390 and the subsequent sections

which deal with the punishments of the various offences of robbery.

Some changes were proposed by the Fifth Law Commission, in its Forty Second report on the

Indian Penal Code relating to robbery and dacoity. The Law Commission, expressing its

satisfaction over the existing definition of ‘robbery’, suggested no changes in Section 390.

However, it recommended some changes in the provisions dealing with punishment for robbery

and dacoity, but these recommendations did not materialise as the 1978 Bill lapsed in 1979 due

to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.1

After analysing the landmark cases and the more recent ones (from 2001-2013), we can notice

a change in the approach of the courts while addressing this crime. The recent cases seem to

indicate that the courts have started laying greater emphasis on the sentencing and punishment.

Much deliberation has been done by the courts on this particular aspect. Since, the landmark

cases have clearly defined the essential ingredients of this offence, more importance is now

being given to the scope and ambit of the various provisions which deal with the punishments

for the crime of robbery. Scope of this offence has been scrutinised by the courts taking into

account the need of prevention of this serious crime in current times and society.

1 PSA PILLAI, CRIMINAL LAW 1048 (10th ed., 2008).

offence of robbery - important cases

Documents

criminal offence of

offence of theft

time of committing robbery

instant hurt

person death

fear of instant death

state of karnataka

cases bw